Ultrasound for Breast Cancer Detection Globally: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE Mammography is not always available or feasible. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the diagnostic performance of ultrasound as a primary tool for early detection of breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we comprehensively searched PubMed and SCOPUS to identify articles from January 2000 to December 2018 that included data on the performance of ultrasound for detection of breast cancer. Studies evaluating portable, handheld ultrasound as an independent detection modality for breast cancer were included. Quality assessment and bias analysis were performed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Sensitivity analyses and meta-regression were used to explore heterogeneity. The study protocol has been registered with the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO identifier: CRD42019127752). RESULTS Of the 526 identified studies, 26 were eligible for inclusion. Ultrasound had an overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of 80.1% (95% CI, 72.2% to 86.3%) and 88.4% (95% CI, 79.8% to 93.6%), respectively. When only low- and middle-income country data were considered, ultrasound maintained a diagnostic sensitivity of 89.2% and specificity of 99.1%. Meta-analysis of the included studies revealed heterogeneity. The high sensitivity of ultrasound for the detection of breast cancer was not statistically significantly different in subgroup analyses on the basis of mean age, risk, symptoms, study design, bias level, and study setting. CONCLUSION Given the increasing burden of breast cancer and infeasibility of mammography in certain settings, we believe these results support the potential use of ultrasound as an effective primary detection tool for breast cancer, which may be beneficial in low-resource settings where mammography is unavailable.

[1]  R. Fimmers,et al.  Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[2]  Ming-Feng Hou,et al.  Comparison of breast mammography, sonography and physical examination for screening women at high risk of breast cancer in taiwan. , 2002, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[3]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Diagnostic Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. , 2017, Radiology.

[4]  Markus Hahn,et al.  Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review , 2009, BMC Cancer.

[5]  Wendy B DeMartini,et al.  Accuracy and value of breast ultrasound for primary imaging evaluation of symptomatic women 30-39 years of age. , 2012, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[6]  S. Thompson,et al.  How should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[7]  Roberta A. Jong,et al.  Ultrasound as the Primary Screening Test for Breast Cancer: Analysis From ACRIN 6666. , 2016, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[8]  Bin Zhang,et al.  A multi-centre randomised trial comparing ultrasound vs mammography for screening breast cancer in high-risk Chinese women , 2015, British Journal of Cancer.

[9]  A. Jemal,et al.  Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries , 2018, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[10]  C M Rutter,et al.  A hierarchical regression approach to meta‐analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

[11]  K. Uchida,et al.  Screening ultrasonography revealed 15% of mammographically occult breast cancers , 2008, Breast cancer.

[12]  Ahmedin Jemal,et al.  Global Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates and Trends—An Update , 2015, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[13]  C. Yip,et al.  Improving Outcomes in Breast Cancer for Low and Middle Income Countries , 2015, World Journal of Surgery.

[14]  Tariq Azad,et al.  The Accuracy of Ultrasound in Diagnosis of Palpable Breast Lumps , 2008 .

[15]  Woo Kyung Moon,et al.  Breast cancer detected with screening US: reasons for nondetection at mammography. , 2014, Radiology.

[16]  L. Conteh,et al.  Breast Cancer Disparities Among Women in Low- and Middle-Income Countries , 2018, Current Breast Cancer Reports.

[17]  Dimitris Mavridis,et al.  How to assess publication bias: funnel plot, trim-and-fill method and selection models , 2014, Evidence-Based Mental Health.

[18]  Pilot Educational Intervention and Feasibility Assessment of Breast Ultrasound in Rural South Africa , 2017, Journal of global oncology.

[19]  Victor M Montori,et al.  Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines , 2002, BMC medical research methodology.

[20]  J. Baker,et al.  Diagnostic Value of Ultrasound in Female Patients With Nipple Discharge. , 2015, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[21]  Jonathan J Deeks,et al.  The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. , 2005, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[22]  F. Sloan,et al.  The Cancer Burden in Low- and Middle-Income Countries and How It Is Measured , 2007 .

[23]  Edward Azavedo,et al.  Guidelines for International Breast Health and Cancer Control – Implementation Supplement to Cancer Guideline Implementation for Breast Healthcare in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries Overview of the Breast Health Global Initiative Global Summit 2007 , 2008 .

[24]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Breast ultrasound in 22,131 asymptomatic women with negative mammography. , 2013, Breast.

[25]  O. Omidiji,et al.  Breast cancer screening in a resource poor country: Ultrasound versus mammography. , 2017, Ghana medical journal.

[26]  Les Irwig,et al.  Sydney Breast Imaging Accuracy Study: Comparative sensitivity and specificity of mammography and sonography in young women with symptoms. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[27]  Alexandra Athanasiou,et al.  How to optimize breast ultrasound. , 2009, European journal of radiology.

[28]  Comparison of automated breast ultrasonography to handheld ultrasonography in detecting and diagnosing breast lesions , 2016, Acta radiologica.

[29]  K. DeStigter,et al.  Pilot Study of a Resource-Appropriate Strategy for Downstaging Breast Cancer in Rural Uganda , 2016 .

[30]  Gary L. Kreps,et al.  Guidelines for International Breast Health and Cancer Control – Implementation Supplement to Cancer Guideline Implementation for Breast Healthcare in Low-and Middle-Income Countries Early Detection Resource Allocation , 2008 .

[31]  M. Curado,et al.  Breast cancer screening in developing countries , 2017, Clinics.

[32]  J. Weigert,et al.  The Connecticut Experiment; The Third Installment: 4 Years of Screening Women with Dense Breasts with Bilateral Ultrasound , 2017, The breast journal.

[33]  A. Jemal,et al.  Global cancer statistics , 2011, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[34]  Hannah R Rothstein,et al.  A basic introduction to fixed‐effect and random‐effects models for meta‐analysis , 2010, Research synthesis methods.

[35]  Stephen W Duffy,et al.  Addition of ultrasound to mammography in the case of dense breast tissue: systematic review and meta-analysis , 2018, British Journal of Cancer.

[36]  H. Kim,et al.  Comparison of automated breast volume scanning and hand- held ultrasound in the detection of breast cancer: an analysis of 5,566 patient evaluations. , 2014, Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP.

[37]  E. Devolli-Disha,et al.  Comparative accuracy of mammography and ultrasound in women with breast symptoms according to age and breast density. , 2009, Bosnian journal of basic medical sciences.

[38]  J. Youk,et al.  Comparison of Cancer Yields and Diagnostic Performance of Screening Mammography vs. Supplemental Screening Ultrasound in 4394 Women with Average Risk for Breast Cancer , 2014, Ultraschall in der Medizin.

[39]  M. Zulfiqar,et al.  The comparative accuracy of ultrasound and mammography in the detection of breast cancer. , 2014, The Medical journal of Malaysia.

[40]  L. Leong,et al.  Supplementary breast ultrasound screening in Asian women with negative but dense mammograms-a pilot study. , 2012, Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore.

[41]  D B Plewes,et al.  Comparison of breast magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound for surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. , 2001, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[42]  C. Gatsonis,et al.  Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. , 2007, Radiology.

[43]  B. Anderson.  Breast Cancer—Thinking Globally , 2014, Science.

[44]  A. Jemal,et al.  Global cancer statistics, 2012 , 2015, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[45]  M. Shetty,et al.  Screening and diagnosis of breast cancer in low-resource countries: what is state of the art? , 2011, Seminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR.

[46]  Ruth Etzioni,et al.  Early detection and treatment strategies for breast cancer in low-income and upper middle-income countries: a modelling study. , 2018, The Lancet. Global health.

[47]  J. Youk,et al.  Performance of hand-held whole-breast ultrasound based on BI-RADS in women with mammographically negative dense breast , 2011, European Radiology.

[48]  P. Rosenbaum,et al.  Disparities in Breast Cancer Survival by Socioeconomic Status Despite Medicare and Medicaid Insurance , 2018, The Milbank quarterly.

[49]  J. Hendriks,et al.  Breast ultrasound in women with familial risk of breast cancer. , 2004, Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore.

[50]  M. Galukande,et al.  Rethinking breast cancer screening strategies in resource-limited settings. , 2010, African health sciences.

[51]  S Duval,et al.  Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel‐Plot–Based Method of Testing and Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis , 2000, Biometrics.

[52]  T. M. Kolb,et al.  Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. , 2002, Radiology.

[53]  Denise Thigpen,et al.  The Role of Ultrasound in Screening Dense Breasts—A Review of the Literature and Practical Solutions for Implementation , 2018, Diagnostics.

[54]  Susan Mallett,et al.  QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies , 2011, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[55]  Rajendra A Badwe,et al.  Breast Cancer in Limited‐Resource Countries: Diagnosis and Pathology , 2006, The breast journal.

[56]  Wendy B DeMartini,et al.  Targeted ultrasound in women younger than 30 years with focal breast signs or symptoms: outcomes analyses and management implications. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[57]  C. Lehman,et al.  National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Screening Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. , 2017, Radiology.